The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, upholding the validity of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act in response to a United States request for their extradition.
The court unanimously granted special leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal, lifting an interim stay that had halted the extradition proceedings. It also ordered that there be no order as to costs before the CCJ and reserved its decision on costs in the courts below.
The extradition request was received by the Government of Guyana on October 28, 2025. Two days later, Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond issued the ATP, triggering the extradition process before the courts.
Mohamed and his father sought judicial review, arguing that the ATP was invalid because it was tainted by actual or apparent bias arising from public statements made by senior Government officials during the 2025 election campaign. They also contended that the Minister had acted improperly by consulting the Attorney General, who they alleged was similarly biased.
After the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed their challenge, the applicants sought special leave to appeal to the CCJ, which heard the application and the substantive appeal together.
In a joint judgment, CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson and Justice Barrow held that while the rule against bias can apply to a ministerial decision to issue an ATP, allegations of political bias alone were insufficient to invalidate it. They found no evidence that the Minister’s decision had been tainted by bias and noted that an ATP is a preliminary administrative step in the extradition process.
The judges also said challenges to an ATP may be filed before the committal stage but, except in the most exceptional circumstances, should generally be heard only after that stage has been completed to better align with Guyana’s extradition framework and international obligations.
In separate reasons, Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar and Bulkan agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They held there was no legal bar to an early judicial review challenge where bias is alleged. Although they found a real possibility of apparent bias on the part of the Attorney General, they concluded it did not taint the Minister’s decision-making process or invalidate the ATP.
In a further opinion, Justices Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji also agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. They said allegations of bias must be assessed from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer and concluded that bias had not been established in the circumstances of the case. They also noted that the extradition process itself contains safeguards to address potential unfairness.
The full CCJ bench comprised President Justice Winston Anderson and Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji and Bulkan.
Fyard Hosein, SC, Roysdale A. Forde, SC, Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Siand Dhurjon, Damien Da Silva and Aadam Hosein appeared for the appellants. Douglas L. Mendes, SC, and Clay J. Hackett represented the Minister of Home Affairs, while Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, Solicitor General Nigel O. Hawke, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V. Lall and Dishon Persaud appeared for the Attorney General. Arudranauth Gossai represented Magistrate Judy Latchman.
